Forums

DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation of the specific thought process that biz used to "choose" to be heterosexual.

Of course, he'll continue to refuse to produce one because his assertion that sexuality is entirely a choice is complete bullshit that he is unable to defend with any kind of argument that makes sense. He'll just continue to hide behind "LOGIC!" and the idea that none of us can appropriately understand or apply logic like he can. Apparently, because he's special.

Which very similar to the way that he tried to defend Socialism last fall. When it was pointed out that virtually every implementation of a Socialist economy has eventually failed, he "explained" that it was because Socialism was never implemented "properly". Though he could never define what that meant, yet continually claimed that he did, but that none of us intellectual inferiors could understand it as he does.

He trolls. He's not trying to make a logical argument or prove a point. His one and only goal is to provoke a response.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/30/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):In what situation, aside from this topic, are people not accepting of diversity that is chosen? Where rights aren't granted because people act a certain way? Aside from criminal acts.

Biz - here, try again, because you failed miserably the last time I asked this.

You're arguing that sexuality isn't a choice, which is the agenda-based attempt to make the above moot when it in fact it is all that matters.

Have you? When? What are they? Because I call bullshit.

Sure I have.

People can and DO lead full, productive and happy lives when they don't choose their preferences in life. In fact, most people choose a significant other who only matches some of their preferences because trying to find them all in one person can prove difficult (and in some cases, impossible). So unless your significant other is every preference you've ever had, then you did the same thing. Does that mean you're unhappy since you didn't get all your preferences? Probably not unless something else is happening to make that the case. Most times gender is an important preference; sometimes its not as important. It depends on the person.

Also, someone who chooses a gender other than their preference may go on to lead a happy life because they discover they value other things more importantly than their preferred gender, the same way you might find value in someone who isn't as (insert attribute here) as much as you might prefer.

I said things that weren't criminal. Please pay attention.

You asked for things that are looked down on in society and I provided a list. You don't get to dictate what parts of that list suit you.

People who enjoy S&M have equal rights.

This wasn't about rights but about a list of people who are looked down upon by society.

What "many factors" are at work aside from attraction, society, and the government? Possibly desire to copulate. That's about all I can think of that's likely to be even remotely significant relative to those things.

People choose who they want to be with based upon more factors than I could even think of to list here, so I'm not going to bother trying. The point is that it's not always about attraction - people can make choices based upon whatever they want, and they do.

You're now being deliberately obtuse, because the point nearly everyone aside from you is trying to make is that homosexuality is NOT a term that should given based upon actions but rather upon preferences.

I realize what "nearly everyone" is trying to do, and they are failing to do so.

There is absolutely ZERO logical reasoning why sexuality (including homosexuality) should violate all the methods we use to define what people are by the actions they take while all the other terms continue to function in the normal (and logical) way.

And you still have done absolutely nothing to convince me that homosexuality SHOULD be a term based upon actions rather than preferences.

You must be skipping a lot in this long thread. Understandable, but you're asking me to repeat the argument I already made pages ago. Nutshell: Almost all terms we assign to people are based upon actions. There is no reason sexuality should be any different.

Why is being gay or straight more like being a lawyer than being an Orioles fan?

I've answered the question (the underlying one) many times throughout this thread, including twice directly above in this response.

You never answered the question. At all. You haven't even tried. I'll take that as a concession. I gave you examples of terms assigned to people that aren't based on actions. Orioles fan. Not based on actions. Based on preferences. Until you at least pretend to justify your assertion that sexuality should be defined by action instead of choice, rather that repeating it ad nauseum, I'll continue to believe you're just as full of **** now as you have been in the discussions on socialism and the age of the Earth. In this case there might have been an intelligent argument to be made, but you sure as hell aren't making it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/30/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):When your argument is blown to ****, run from your statements.

Got it.

What exactly am I running from? Did the asexual person choose to be asexual? Of course not. Just like you didn't choose to be straight and gay person A didnt choose to be gay.

Anyone can make the choice to be in a certain kind of relationship, but I'd guess that there are very, very few non-gay people choosing to be in gay relationships. And again, it's really irrelevant to the marriage question.

So, to recap, you admit that there is a possibility that people can be born with no basic attraction to either sex.

And you agree that it's possible that said people could make a choice later in life based on any number of factors.

FWIW, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a choice. I'm saying choice is a possibility which a handful of you have insisted that there's nofuckingwayinhell that it is(and one has insisted that it absofuckinglutely is). As I said a few pages back, I think sexuality is more complicated than what anyone who has "known" their sexual preference for as long as they remember thinks it is.

I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation of the specific thought process that biz used to "choose" to be heterosexual.

You'll be waiting forever. My personal choices are none of your business and are certainly not up for debate here.

Of course, he'll continue to refuse to produce one because his assertion that sexuality is entirely a choice is complete bullshit that he is unable to defend with any kind of argument that makes sense.

Quite the opposite. I've already produced an argument that makes sense.

Despite the number of you who continue to argue vehemently against my position, your combined effort has yet to produce a single reason why sexuality should be defined the way you say other than "because we say so", which is meaningless.

When it was pointed out that virtually every implementation of a Socialist economy has eventually failed, he "explained" that it was because Socialism was never implemented "properly". Though he could never define what that meant, yet continually claimed that he did, but that none of us intellectual inferiors could understand it as he does.

I really don't want to get dragged into an off-topic discussion about another thread from months ago, but it is necessary to point out the fact that I did define what a proper implementation would be. The nutshell is that a proper socialist community includes only those who want to be a part of it because they realize it's ability to provide them with a better life. Many claim there is no incentive to produce in socialism, but if you don't produce in such a community, you get kicked out of it and must return to whatever other society will take you and would no longer benefit from the socialist community you value you so much.

If you want to discuss it further, create another topic. Let's stay on topic here.

He trolls. He's not trying to make a logical argument or prove a point. His one and only goal is to provoke a response.

Do you think everyone who dares to disagree with a majority viewpoint is a troll? "I'm BL and if anyone disagrees with my ideas, they are a troll!"

BL, I don't care if you or anyone in this thread EVER responds to what I'm saying. Stop responding right now and it won't bother me in the least. But when you do respond, I will respond in kind if I so desire. That's how message boards work.

Bistiza, I want to clear something up. You might have answered it earlier, but I'm not going to read this whole thread.

Do you define sexuality as:
A. A sexual preference or attraction
B. A lifestyle choice

Because there's an important difference.

Sexuality is defined by who you choose to be with in romantic and/or sexual relationships or encounters.

"Most times gender is an important preference; sometimes its not as important. It depends on the person."

Laughable. It's just not true.

The statement IS true - but not for you personally, so you can't understand it because you have no ability to see things from anyone's perspective but your own, much less from a neutral one.

The only thing that is "laughable" is your attempt to debate anything while never being able to see beyond your own point of view.

I gave you examples of terms assigned to people that aren't based on actions. Orioles fan. Not based on actions. Based on preferences.

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote before.

An "Orioles fan" indicates a preference for the Orioles. Having a preference and what you actually do are two different things. There is no way to establish that you're an "Orioles fan" (other than you saying so) unless you take action to show it. In the same way, there is no way to establish someone's sexuality (other than them saying so) unless they take action.

Someone saying they are something isn't a reliable method of determining what they are. If it were, many criminals would claim innocence and be set free, and I'd be the billionaire batpope because I said I was earlier in this thread.

So given that what people say isn't reliable to determine what they are, the only accurate way to do that is by their actions. Hence, the most accurate and logical way to determine sexuality is by who people choose to be with in romantic and/or sexual situations and relationships.

This right here is my justification for defining sexuality by choice. I've already stated it many times, so for you to act as though I haven't is either denial on your part or you showing you haven't been reading.

In this case there might have been an intelligent argument to be made, but you sure as hell aren't making it.

I made the argument a long time ago, and it's held up against a group of people for page after page now and none of them - including you - has put up so much as a single counter argument for their own side except "we say so".

So give me one. Tell me WHY sexuality should be defined by attraction rather than action, and please say something other than "because we say so" or "we agree so we're right".

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/1/2013 8:18:00 AM (view original):FWIW, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a choice. I'm saying choice is a possibility which a handful of you have insisted that there's nofuckingwayinhell that it is(and one has insisted that it absofuckinglutely is). As I said a few pages back, I think sexuality is more complicated than what anyone who has "known" their sexual preference for as long as they remember thinks it is.

You're not paying attention. ANYONE can make a choice on who they have a relationship/sleep with. Your attraction is not a choice.

There is also an argument as to whether homosexuality is the preference of the same sex or the action of having a relationship/sleeping with someone of the same sex.

HA! That's funny. I actually have an open mind, can think critically, can understand other points of view. I can admit if someone makes a good argument and shut the hell up, and I've done that on these forums. YOU cannot.

I see you're also dodging my question. You stated that people are less likely to give equal rights and be accepting of people who are diverse in the choices they make, rather than their biological makeup. I stated that isn't true, and asked you for examples of why you think that way. Aside from criminal acts, you haven't been able to do that. Which supports my argument that there is no agenda or propaganda to manipulate the definition of the word homosexuality, because there is no reason to do that in the first place.

I actually have an open mind, can think critically, can understand other points of view. I can admit if someone makes a good argument and shut the hell up, and I've done that on these forums. YOU cannot.

This is more of your "because I say so" BS.

You do NOT have an open mind. You insisted what I said was "simply not true" and offered nothing to back that up except your own belief that it wasn't true.

I've offered you a logical reason for why sexuality should be defined the way I'm arguing, and yet you haven't even conceded that it makes sense even if you disagree with it, because you can't see it with a critical eye.

If you could admit when someone made a good argument, then you'd have done it here long ago. You haven't because you can't.

You stated that people are less likely to give equal rights and be accepting of people who are diverse in the choices they make, rather than their biological makeup.

I said nothing of rights - I only said people are less accepting of those who are diverse for choices rather than for biological reasons.

I stated that isn't true, and asked you for examples of why you think that way. Aside from criminal acts, you haven't been able to do that.

I gave you a large list of examples, some criminal, some not, some sexual, some not.

I've met your burden but you want to qualify it so that you can say I didn't, and I'm not playing those games with you.

Which supports my argument that there is no agenda or propaganda to manipulate the definition of the word homosexuality, because there is no reason to do that in the first place.

There is a great reason to have an agenda and create propaganda to support it, and I've given you that reason. You only deny it exists because you are in favor of the agenda it puts forward, and you're aware propaganda doesn't work well when people are enlightened as to its subversive goals. You want to forward those goals, so you make sure you deny they exist.